Related

Over the past decade or so, official apologies have become more common as a means of coming to terms with history.

In Canada, that history has included incarcerating Japanese-Canadians, forcing first nations children into residential schools, apprehending the children of the Sons of Freedom sect, which was terrorizing parts of British Columbia, turning back the Komagata Maru in 1914 and its 376 Indian passengers and excluding and taxing Chinese immigrants.

So there’s no shortage of things to apologize for.

But saying sorry is a hard thing to do. It’s harder still to do it publicly, sincerely and with enough grace that the very people previously offended aren’t once again bruised by it.

Still, it appears that Premier Christy Clark may be determined to wander into this minefield.

Recently, she indicated that she’s considering an official apology to Chinese-Canadians for the province’s role in disenfranchising and discriminating against them for nearly a century.

British Columbians provided the impetus for Ottawa’s decision to impose both a Chinese head tax and legislation that excluded them from immigrating. And, over some of those years, the province collected half of the head-tax levies.

But things aren’t going well for Clark.

“The wording of the drafted apology reflects serious insincerity,” says Bill Chu on behalf of the Canadians for Reconciliation Society.

In May, Chu and his group were given a draft of the apology by Liberal backbenchers Richard Lee and John Yap.

“It [the draft] only highlights the same Chinese Head Tax and Chinese Exclusion Act, federal discriminatory policies which were apologized for [by the federal government in 2006] and later included in the B.C. [school] curriculum.”

Chu says that if the apology is made in its draft form, it will “perpetuate the denial of the province’s role in Chinese misery in B.C. by pointing the blame only at the well-known federal policies.”

What the group wants is a detailed listing of the province’s role in the systemic discrimination from legislation to statements made in the legislature to other actions taken. As a model, it points to a draft apology to Chinese-Americans submitted to the U.S. house of representatives in June. (http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20120618/BILLS-112hres683ih.pdf )

But the criticism doesn’t end there. The draft uses the word “hardship” to describe what Chinese-Canadians endured.

“Chinese in B.C. did not suffer only hardship but racism,” says Chu, a longtime human rights activist. “By choosing the generic word ‘hardship’, the province is trying to suggest Chinese went through something all B.C. settlers experienced in one form or another.

“The attempt is to trivialize racism in B.C.’s own policies towards Chinese.”

There is, of course, time to improve on the wording. The legislature isn’t in session and that should be where the apology is made.

But it’s a bit disheartening that it wasn’t done right in the first draft. It’s not like there hasn’t been time. The federal government’s apology was made in 2006.

And it’s not that there aren’t good precedents to follow.

The 2008 apology for residential schools in Canada’s House of Commons — an inclusive, consultative, non-partisan effort led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper — is one.

Another, closer to home, was New Westminster city council’s apology to Chinese-Canadians in 2010 that was offered in both English and Mandarin.

The former B.C. capital became the first municipality in Canada to formally apologize to the Chinese, acknowledging it had been what Chu’s group called “the epicentre” of racism against the community.

What made the New Westminster apology so powerful was that the apology was part of a whole package of measures aimed at redress and reconciliation.

Before making the apology, the city commissioned a study of what previous councils had done and concluded that “discriminatory practices were commonplace” between 1880 and 1926.

It held public meetings to talk about the past and hear people’s stories about what had happened to them or to their ancestors.

Done well, official apologies are symbolic gestures, reflecting both our better nature and our aspirations. They are transformative, acting as a first step aimed at forging a new, more trusting relationship with the offended group. And they must rise above politics.

That’s what we should expect from the B.C. government with regard to a long-overdue apology to Chinese-Canadians. And it’s what we should demand.

Almost Done!

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.